Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77135
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADajX4DVrLw6x5BR1iYRQRTw3KTWv6kATVjvJcjXG9Fk_PJxyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F3528124-17C4-4DB1-B11A-E9132775A144@ajf.me>
	<CAEZPtU5qsvpAY5i6AFpgAsiFgjKmtOQ+Fzk=hx01r9+3QfOuFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL+t6cHp8syWG660dMD_3D9c0wiAWxqzv1V8qdtKh7D3iGrruQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E8E94673-4549-4C9D-8E0F-5ECE8AC36EDF@ajf.me>
	<540D638B.8010303@php.net>
	<24B60FB5-35B8-4B6F-AD6C-54A8B24D4462@ajf.me>
	<540DC38B.3070700@gmx.de>
	<CADajX4DVrLw6x5BR1iYRQRTw3KTWv6kATVjvJcjXG9Fk_PJxyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:31:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU71y7aMaMuS4H2UcL35Z72caOJ3tJ4OY7wFGPHPyLY5JA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net>
Cc: Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Implicit isset() in Shorthand Ternary Operator
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net> wrote:
> On 8 September 2014 07:56, Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Am 08.09.2014 15:58, schrieb Andrea Faulds:
>>> We could add such an operator, perhaps with the ?? syntax. However, I
>>> don=E2=80=99t really like the idea. It=E2=80=99s too similar to ?: so I=
 don=E2=80=99t think
>>> it=E2=80=99d be accepted, and even if it was, I=E2=80=99m not sure we r=
eally need
>>> another operator. I=E2=80=99d much rather just make ?: do what, IMO, is=
 the
>>> right thing and what it always should have done.
>>
>> I'd rather had a shortcut for the following:
>>
>>   isset($_GET['foo']) ? $_GET['foo'] : BAR
>
> Agreed. That's what ifsetor requests have generally boiled down to
> over the years, so it seems to be what the masses want.
>
> It's what _I_ want, anyway. :)
>
>> Of course, it is not possible to change the ?: operator to work this way
>> for BC reasons, but a new operator such as ?? might make sense.
>
> +1 on ?? =E2=80=94 there's precedent for it, and it means we don't have t=
o
> explain why the shorthand form of an operator behaves differently to
> the long form, which is just going to confuse users.

After a 2nd look I have to agree here too. Changing behavior in
something so widely used as the current operator will likely create
more pains. A new operator, clearly documented, sounds much cleaner,
even more as it does something different anyway.


--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org